Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reporting a client the TE Topology profile a server has implemented #161

Open
italobusi opened this issue Jul 11, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Comments

@italobusi
Copy link
Collaborator

italobusi commented Jul 11, 2021

It is not clear how it is possible to report to a client the TE topology profiles that a server has implemented

  • Not an issue when reading the operational DS
  • Issue when writing to running DS
    How to avoid the client to write an attribute not used in the TE Topology profile implemented by the server

Is it a general issue?

  • How to avoid the client to write an optional attribute which is not supported by the server
@italobusi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Triggered some discussion in Netmod WG:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/8wsAyGazqi7KqgFHz9VK-7vuzHc/

This seems an issue to be addressed by TEAS

@italobusi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

italobusi commented Sep 10, 2021

2021-09-10 TE Call

+--network-topology
  +--rw supported-network-profiles*     string
  +--rw network
     +--rw network-te-profile*     leafref

Client can write the network-te-profile to request the server to implement only some profiles for a given topology instance

Server report in the network-te-profile which profile has been implemented by a given topology instance

Client can write supported-te-profiles to request the server which profile implemented by the server should be used


Server reports in the supported-te-profiles the profiles it has implemented (e.g., uni, status, geolocation)

Client can request the server to implement a sub-set of its supported profiles (e.g., uni, status):

  • write the supported-network-profiles

Server capability: A, B, C, D

Client 1: A, B
Client 2: B, C

operational-DS: union (A, B, C, D)

rpc get-profile-topology

  • requested-profiles*
  • network-topology (same tree)

Should we find a generic solution which can be used with other models (e.g., te-tunnel) or different similar solutions for te-topology and te-tunnel model?


The plan is to progress this issue before requesting WG adoption

@italobusi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

2021-10-08 TE Call

+--network-topology
  +--ro supported-network-profiles*     identityref
  +--ro requested-network-profiles* [ client-id network-profile]
    +--ro client-id                client-id
    +--ro network-profile    identityref

Server reports the profiles it has implemented (e.g., uni, status, geolocation):

  • in the supported-network-profiles within the operational datastore

For example, the server can report that it can support the following profiles:

  • supported-network-profiles: [ A, B, C, D ]

Client can request the server to implement a sub-set of its supported profiles (e.g., uni, status):

  • through a request-network-profiles RPC

For example, the server can report that it can support the following profiles:

  • Client 1: request-network-profile [A, B]
  • Client 2: request-network-profile [B, C]

Client 1 can only set the leaves in common between profiles A and B in the running DS and only ready leaves in common between profiles A and B in both running and operational DSes.

Client 2 can only set the leaves in common between profiles B and C in the running DS and only ready leaves in common between profiles B and C in both running and operational DSes.

This information can be available as read-only in the operational DS (similar mechanism as YANG notification subscription)

Not requesting a request-network-profile RPC or requesting a request-network-profile RPC with an empty list is equivalent as requesting all the profiles being supported by the server.

@italobusi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The profile of the TE topology should also take into account the optional attributes defined in the technology-specific augmentation models. See for example: ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang#92

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant